We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, November 16. 2007

Pontius Pilate's sarcastic, ruthless yet also sympathetic and challenging question to Christ (for which he did not wait for an answer) will echo in my mind as long as I live.

"Substituting science for religion is like swapping a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear."

It has always seemed to me that non-scientists, and non-students of the hard sciences and math, put more faith in "science" than do students of science.

Non-students of science seem quick to find truth in the results of the scientific method than scientists themselves, who, like the great Polanyi, tend to be humble about knowledge, and are always questioning their methods and their findings. Science is about "theory" and a search for facts, not about Truth. Scientists never talk about Truth.

It was good to see Polanyi referenced in a piece by John Polinghorne in the UK's Times Online, titled The Truth in Religion. He uses Dawkins and Hitchins, et al, as starting points for a serious discussion of the relationship between faith and reason. One quote:

No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science. Dawkins invokes Bertrand Russell’s parable of the teapot irrationally claimed to be in unobserved orbit in the solar system. Of course there are no grounds for belief in this piece of celestial crockery, but there are grounds offered for religious belief, though admittedly different people evaluate their persuasiveness differently. Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science. In all realms of human inquiry, the interlacing of experience and interpretation introduces a degree of precariousness into the argument. Yet this does not mean that we cannot attain beliefs sufficiently well motivated to be the basis for rational commitment. In his book on the philosophy of science, Personal Knowlege (1964), Michael Polanyi stated that he was writing in order to explain how (scientifically) he could commit himself to what he believed to be true, while knowing it might be false. That is the human epistemic condition. Recognizing this should encourage caution, but not induce intellectual paralysis. It is in this spirit that the dialogue between science and religion needs to be conducted.

I think dialog between science and religion is nonsensical: science is about what can be known to be true -- specifically, using observations to generate hypotheses (inductive knowledge), using other observations to disprove the hypotheses, and generally believing in those hypotheses which cannot be shot down, e.g. quantum electrodynamics, with its physical predictions being verified to over 10(!) decimal places.

Religion, on the other hand, asks the believer to selectively suspend the use of reason as regards the religion's particular creed (but not the creeds of other religions), teaching that this suspension of suspicion ("faith") is inherently meritorious.

Both may happily coexist in the world, as for instance, in the mind of the Vatican's chief astronomer, who "seeks to find out how Creation works". But this is a far cry from actually having anything to say to each other except "don't tread on me".

Truth ... is not to be known by mankind, scientifically or religiously. It is beyond our capacity to know with unquestionable certitude what truth is or is not.

It was believed by science, even after we split the atom that matter could not be destroyed. The we found out it could.

In religion truths foundation is built on one thing, faith. You either believe or you do not believe in your particular religion, but the predicate is faith alone. No empirical formulation can be devised to repeat an experiment in religion to get closer to the elusive certitude by having the experiment always produce the same result.

Science would like to believe that using the same procedures, formulations and ingredients, that "proof" and thus truth is found. This last just as long as it takes the next bright scientist to disprove the "truth" But scientist have "faith" that science is the "truth"

I always come back to the pre-Socrates Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus, who stated the only "truth" I think I know ....*Nothing is constant but change*

Actually, any scientist worth his salt knows that he isn't in the proof game, but the disproof game. As you correctly point out, we have disproven the notion that matter cannot be destroyed. We've also disproven Newtonian mechanics under some circumstances. In each of these cases, extra caveats get added. In other cases, the original belief is chucked in its entirety.

The Black Swan fallacy highlights the fact that science cannot prove. Only mathematics can prove, and that's because deduction can neither add nor subtract information, but only rearrange its presentation. The operation of science resides with induction, not deduction.

A scientist may demonstrate or argue, certainly, but never prove. And any scientist who argues otherwise should be fired.

Fine points gentlemen. Truth is a miasma I think. We are all enveloped in some form of it. For it is everywhere and nowhere. We pick and choose based on our dispositions and needs. H. nails it, I think, with Heraclitus. The only constant is change. Spoken like an experienced Marine.

Religion has changed, science has changed... none of us would recognize the world a thousand years hence. So what is it we speak of?

Some things don't change. 'We live in an old chaos of the sun', sub-lunar, a changing image of eternity. But, eternity's abuilding, that mighty ediface, brick by brick. All acts of love, mercy, pity, peace add a brick to translunar paradise. All acts of hate, strife, rancor, being negatives, vanish.

Meta, if you are speaking of metaphysica verum est metahysical verum you would, as far as I can tell simply be stating that the agreed upon "truth" of that time would be "the truth" for that time. If that is the case we are fairly far from eternal truth, which I contend does not exists, save one, the death of the individual in the physical state we know them to be in now. That also may not be the truth.

Platonists believe that everything exists but has simply not yet been discovered by man

C.S. Lewis had a good observation about this, he said really the role of the scientist is to perform experiments and report results -- "I put this and this in a pot, boiled it and this happened." That does not give him any special insight into what those results then mean -- he can say he observes phenomena in the natural world, but he has no special standing to speculate on philosophical or theological questions.

How would you handle a scientist such as Edison who experimented with over 10,000 elements before he found one that would burn for a sufficient length of time ..... he "knew" a priori that he coudl produce light from electricity so did he have any special insight inot what his experiments were doing or were going to mean.

I would say yes. He knew that darkness would be replaced with electrical power as opposed to candle power.

"IF", is the current scientific hypothesis as to the eventual end state of the known universe. It is conjectured and premised on current observable conditions of cosmic expansion. Observed conditions that are rigorously vetted as to accuracy and relevancy. Truths or facts, in other words. Now, over time, and with better and different observational skills these temporary truths may require, and indeed will require, adjustments to the larger hypothesis. But at this particular point in space/time it appears that the universe will end as cold dark lifeless matter moving through a light-less void.

So, absent intervention of a force outside the existing known universe, of which, if this force exists, we currently know nothing of its existence, that will be our end state.

So, my question, if there is a universal truth in a lifeless universe with no human to discern nor perceive it, is it a universal truth?

And secondarily, will the universal truths some hold now, continue to be universal truths under the above scenario?

IF", is the current scientific hypothesis as to the eventual end state of the known universe.

As presented, "IF" originates doubtful for y'all as well as meself. Gradiently it rises to probable for y'all. Apparently the data you have in fist supports but higher probability is someone told y'all someone said it does.

It is conjectured and premised on current observable conditions of cosmic expansion. Observed conditions that are rigorously vetted as to accuracy and relevancy.

Conjecture whatever it's object is by definition without sufficient evidence to arrive at reliable conclusion, speculation only amounting to a guess.

Truths or facts, in other words.

Which is your guess, truth or fact?

Now, over time, and with better and different observational skills these temporary truths may require, and indeed will require, adjustments to the larger hypothesis.

Facts are temporary, time bound. But you haven't established any,

A preponderance of facts may avail a conclusion which is true, but y'all haven't any, not one fact only dubious conjecture.

But at this particular point in space/time it appears that the universe will end as cold dark lifeless matter moving through a light-less void.

You're funny Leag, your devastating dissection of my scenario has shattered me. On the other hand the only rebuttal you offer is your opinion. It is fine that you place such a high value on it, your opinion, but I prefer to give more credence to those who might actually know something about the subject being discussed. Not to say that they are right... it is but a theory after all, but it is actual science.

Though, it is true to character, callin' URL list a research. A compleat one no less.

Oh y'all found another.

Habu check this one out.

I subpoenad one of my ex's mental health records once and the next week upon the ADA's presenting the His Honor a huge box of seventeen year mental health history the old boy looked over the box his eyes mixed with incredulity and amushed he said to that sheepish lil'redhead turning all pretty rudy, "Have you read all this?"

"No Your Honor, I..." Red tried to justify but was cut short.

"EWe, don't expect me to read all of this, do ewe?"

She couldn't burble anything cogent before he looked at me apologigeticly he said, "Sir I'm sorry the ADA has wasted our time. Case is dismissed and have a nice day."

Turning his best starry stare that fella's like him hone well, he told that little beauty to get the box off the courts bench before he decided to have her read it all, just because.

Your theory is nothing more than guess, established by your own characterization, conjecture.

Let me know when y'all are ready to come up with substance that you can communicate.

Nah, Leag, I'm done. It's not my theory. You can dismiss 2000 years of cumulative science as just a guess if'n you like. Fine with me. You'n have yet to say anything substantive other than y'alls cute little storytelling. But no actual rebuttals or alternatives near as I can tell. Y'all have fun walking that road named denial, ya hear.

"Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science.

We all have access to religion's absolute proof but not all avail themselves of the oppurtunity, as when Pilate turned away from Jesus' face."

#9 Leag on 2007-11-17 07:14 (Reply)

What quotation marks, Chief? The ones apparent are mine quoting unquoted text, one line following the other in your comment. When one quotes an author, give credit where credit is due. You failed to do this. tsk...tsk... What a bad darling you be.

It is your conceit and jealously against another, who posts in this forum, that led you to engage me in the first place. Perhaps your time would be better spent looking into your heart for inner truth versus questioning others about theirs.

Sometime in our lives, usually as teens, we decide what we WANT to believe. We may not express it but we spend the rest of our lives defending what to us is truth. We look to science, to writers, and to celebrities to back us up. Plays, art. music is helpful in giving legitimacy to our "faith." Again, just like the Good Book says, we make the awful choice ourselves! No one else is responsible!
Ted

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: